Loading...
04-10-1990 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session on Tuesday, April 10, 1990 at~7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OTHERS PRESENT TY BRISGILL, CHAIRMAN C.P. VAUGHAN, VAUGHAN HOMES JOE POTEMPA, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEITH VAN DINE, SECRETARY CITY STAFF MERWIN WILLMAN BOB ANDREWS - STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. GEORGE VICK - ~ CITY MANAGER JIM SHRIVER NORMA ALTHOUSE, COUNCILPERSON KEN GREENWALD RECORDING SECRETARY ~1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brisgill called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session March 27, 1990 Jim Shriver pointed out that on Page 2, paragraph 5, the word "talking" is spelled "talkiing" and asked that it be corrected. ..1., There being no further corrections, Joe Potempa made a motion to approve the minutes, as amended, for the regular session March 27, 1990. Merwin Willman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. ~3 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There was none. #4 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Steve Young, 515 Aero - Request for Extension of Time to Comply with Junk Vehicle Ordinance Steve. Young was at the meeting to represent this request. Chairman Brisgill, wanting some clarification, asked if the yellow coupe is the vehicle in question. Steve Young said yes it is. Chairman Brisgill then asked if it was in the garage .when the citation was written. Mr. Young said no it was not and explained that the vehicle will not fit all the way in his garage. Chairman Brisgill asked if the vehicle is running and Mr. Young said yes, but when Chairman Brisgill inquired if it has a current license and inspection sticker, Mr. Young replied it does not. . Steve Young commented that the way he reads the ordinance, it - says that the vehicle either has to be operable or have a current - license and inspection sticker. Steve Simonson pointed out to Mr. Young there is.no either/or about it - the vehicle is only considered operable if it has a current license and inspection sticker. Mr. Simonson went on to say the ordinance is directly quoting the State requirements. Steve Young asked for a definition of screening from public view and Chairman Brisgill explained it is fencing and/or screening of an opaque nature which hides the vehicle from public view. Mr. - Brisgill went on to say City Council is working on a definition suggested by the Commission, but there`s nothing definite yet. - - Chairman Brisgill said in his opinion he doesn't think this citation should have been issued because Mr. Young does make an effort to put it in his garage, even though it won't go in all - the way, and suggested maybe the request be tabled. George Vick, noting that the vehicle is operable, asked Steve Young why is it not licensed and inspected. Mr. Young replied because he does not wish to drive the vehicle at this time. Bob Andrews remarked he has basically the same question as George Vick and further stated the vehicle is not undergoing further restoration. Mr. Andrews pointed out to Steve Young the ordinance is an all-encompassing ordinance and the Commission's hands are tied. Joe Potempa asked Councilperson Ken Greenwald when City Council is going to start acting on this and Mr. Greenwald replied _ everything has been sent to the attorney - City Council is awaiting the legal department`s decision. Bob Andrews informed Steve Young the vehicle does qualify as an antique and antique vehicles can be licensed (with an antique license) which forbids them being driven on the street except in parades. Mr. Andrews went on to say that would satisfy the ordinance and Mr. Young's desire not to drive it on the street. Mr. Young stated he does not want to license the car, and then wondered if he puts the vehicle in the garage and then moves it out, how many days can he keep it out. Chairman Brisgill told Steve Young the Commission is trying to operate within the only options available to them through the ordinance. Steve Young asked what ordinance and was told the City ordinance. (2) Mr. Young then asked if there's also-a State ordinance, and Steve . Simonson once again advised Mr. Young the City ordinance is a. direct quote from the State ordinance. - Jim Shriver made a motion saying as long as the car is kept in the garage, there's no problem. Joe Potempa seconded the motion. Mr. Shriver asked, however, that it be noted if the vehicle is outside the garage for a long period of time, then it's in = violation of the ordinance. After a discussion on setting a time limit, Chairman Brisgill- - - took a vote with the following results: AYES: T. Brisgill, J. Potempa, J. Shriver NAYS: M. Willman, G. Vick. Bob Andrews _ _ The motion did not carry and Chairman Brisgill commented there needs to be a motion everyone agrees with. Bob Andrews related that what bothers him is the gentleman's refusal to abide by the ordinance even though he can. Mr. Andrews emphasized that is no way to run a City. Steve Simonson offered the suggestion of tabling the request for - 120 days and making a written request to City Council to get a definition on screening, particularly in regard to antique vehicles, as soon as possible. - Merwin Willman made a motion to table, for 120 days, the request from Steve Young of 515 Aero for an extension of time to comply with the Junk Vehicle Ordinance. Mr. Willman included in his motion the mandate that the Commission make a written request to City Council to get a definition on screening, particularly in regard to antique vehicles, as soon as possible. Bob Andrews seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. - Steve Simonson indicated he would notify the Inspection Department of the Commission's action. Bob Andrews informed Steve Young the City has sent out over 300 letters and has had a problem come up with only 4 antique vehicles - the rest have either complied or had their vehicles hauled off. (3) #5 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request From Edgar Von Scheele and Company to Rezone 2.286 Acres of Land from General Business (GB> to-Garden Home Dwelling District (R-5A) C.P. Vaughan was at the meeting. to represent this request. Bob Andrews made a motion to recommend a public hearing be scheduled by both Planning and Zoning and City-Council for. the request from Edgar Von Scheele and Company to rezone. 2.286 acres . of land from General Business (GB) to Garden Home Dwelling District (R-5A). - - Joe Potempa seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. After .the vote, Merwin WiJ.lman said at the last meeting, when reviewing the plat, the non-access easement had been mentioned. Mr. Willman continued on saying, the only definition given of a non-access easement has to do with preventing curb cuts. Mr. Willman said he had spoken with the City Engineer about this and the City Engineer is going to provide some information to the Commission on this subject. C.P. Vaughan asked if he could speak to this subject and noted that in Greenshire on Woodland Oaks Drive they have a non-access easement. Mr. Vaughan said they were told it is a non-vehicular ~:zt easement, that's why they built the brick wall. Mr. Vaughan suggested a statement be put on the plat for "The Gardens" saying "no curb cut". Chairman Brisgill commented they have the non-access easement in Woodland Oaks, but GVEC still has to drive over it with their vehicles. After more discussion on this, Chairman Brisgill requested it be brought up in the General Discussion part of the meeting. #6 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Review of Jack Hays Blvd. and Schertz Parkway Overlay Districts The Commission had received, in their package, comments from Don Brodeur, City Inspector, with his suggestions for changes to the Jack Hays Blvd. Overlay District Ordinance. The Commission reviewed Don Brodeur's suggestions. Section (e).8 regarding Temporary Development signs. Present Ordinance: .........."These signs must be located at least ten feet from driving surface." ~4) Don Brodeur's Recommendation: Signs must be located a minimum of five (5') feet inside property line. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Keith Van Dine arrived at the meeting at 7:45 P.M. Section (e) 9 regarding Temporary signs pertaining to lease, rental or sale of premise or structure located thereon. Present Ordinance: .........."These signs must be located at least ten feet from -driving surface." Don Brodeur's Recommendation: Signs must be located a minimum of five (5') feet inside property line. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Section (e) 11 regarding Flags, Banners and Pennants. Present Ordinance: "Banners and pennants may be permitted for a period not to exceed ten (10) days for grand openings. However, prior approval shall be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Commission." Don Brodeur recommended the same use of flags, pennants and banners as permitted by Sign Ordinance 86-5-28, Article VI, Section 3 be extended to Jack Hays Blvd. Those uses are as follows: Banners, Flags, Pennants. (a) Banners bearing advertising matter shall be considered an adjunct to wall or free-standing signs. For the purpose of mounting, they shall meet all regulations pertaining thereto. (b) Pennants and streamers are permitted for use in conjunction with banners for the announcement of a grand opening of a business and/or special event. (c) Any banners, pennants or streamers found to be obsolete or in need of repair will promptly be brought to the attention of the owner. The sign(s) will be removed or repaired within 10 days of the date of the written notice. (d) Cloth banner signs without frame may project over and across street right-of-way provided they are of a non-commercial nature, (5) not for private profit. events. The banners shall be at least fourteen t14') feet from the .street grade.. (e) National and/or state flags are permitted. Flags which show an emblem or logo of a firm or corporation are .permitted. No~ flag shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and. the top of the pole will not exceed twenty-five (25') feet in height from the ground. Permit required for the construction of a flag pole. The Commission agreed with Don Brodeur's recommendation. Section (e) 12 regarding directional signs. Present Ordinance: _ "These restrictions also apply to garage/yard sales, - political and charitable signs." - - Don Brodeur's Recommendation: Clarify this Section - Present wording appears to permit garage sale, political and charitable signs with Planning and Zoning approval. There was a lengthy discussion on this recommendation. Chairman Brisgill suggested eliminating the entire sentence about garage/yard sale, political and charitable signs. Steve Simonson said in the past the City has not restricted political signs on Jack Hays Blvd. Mr. Simonson recommended eliminating only the garage sale signs and keeping in the political and charitable signs to give the Commission more leverage in controlling them. Chairman Brisgill inquired if you take out the political and charitable signs and then people request them, will you have to hold two public hearings. Steve Simonson answered yes. Merwin Willman pointed out that if all three are eliminated from the Overlay District Ordinance, they are still covered in the Sign Ordinance. An overlay ordinance is in addition to other ordinance requirements. There was discussion on this with some confusion among other members as to the interpretation of an overlay ordinance. Steve Simonson said, that if he understands it correctly, if all three types of signs are taken out, then there can be unlimited signs tomorrow on-Jack Hays Blvd. and no -enforcement. After several polls of the Commissioners were taken, the decision was made to leave the current ordinance as is regarding these signs. After finishing the revi-ew of .Don Brodeur's recommendations, the - Commission had some of their own. Jim Shriver asked about Section tg) the- requirement for sidewalks, and ,Chairman Brisgill said, in his opinion, that requirement should be eliminated due to the topography along Jack Hays Blvd. which makes it hard. to construct sidewalks. Merwin Willman agreed but also gave another reason. Mr. Willman listed all the subdivisions currently along Jack Hays Blvd. without sidewalks and stated it would be impossible to go back and ask the developers to put them in: Mr. Willman commented that if it is decided to take out the _ requirement for sidewalks, then two reasons should be cited: (1) .topography and (2) existing developments without sidewalks. The Commission agreed and also stressed that this be for Jack Hays Blvd. only - the requirement for sidewalks should stay in_ the Overlay Ordinance for Schertz Parkway. The next item discussed was Section 2.3 (e) 6. The current ordinance reads as follows: "Each business is permitted to have one (1) low profile type sign not attached to the building. The sign shall be approved, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior to construction. Sign shall be a low profile type, normally not to exceed five (5') 2~: feet, and the maximum allowed size does not exceed forty-one hundredths (0.40) square feet for every foot of frontage along FM 3009 right-of -way with a maximum size of one hundred (100) square feet allowed." . Bob Andrews remarked that based on past performances, it has been demonstrated by requests from both City Council and businesses that the 5 feet should be changed to 25 feet. Merwin Willman suggested saying "not to exceed 25` in height". Bob Andrews commented it is impractical for businesses to operate without proper advertisement. Mr. Andrews stressed, however, that the advertisement for developments should be kept at 5 feet. Chairman Brisgill said it should also be noted that all the businesses have requested a variance. Merwin Willman then brought up the idea of restricting the size and configuration of signs at convenience stores, but decided maybe this should be proposed for the Sign Ordinance and not the Overlay Ordinance. Chairman Brisgill mentioned the maximum size 1100 square feet) allowed for the sign and pointed out that the Schertz Parkway Overlay Ordinance allows 200 square feet. ~~i After more discussion the Commission- decided to change this and make it the same as the requirement for- the Schertz Parkway Overlay Ordinance which would read as follows: Each business is permitted to have. one (1) low. profile type -sign not attached to the building. The sign shall he approved, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior .to construction. Sign shall be a low profile type, normally not to exceed a height of twenty-five (25'> feet, and the maximum allowed size not to exceed 200 square feet in area. Steve Simonson commented he likes what the Commi=ssion is doing, but it controls growth to a certain degree. Bob Andrews brought up the boundaries of the overlay districts. Mr. Andrews commented the Jack Hays Blvd. overlay district goes- . from IH-35 to FM 78, but the Schertz Parkway overlay district goes only from E. Live Oak Road to IH-35. Does the Comm_i_ssion wish to leave the boundaries as they are? The answer was yes. Chairman Brisgill brought up Section {e) 7 saying the size of the U.S. and the Texas flag is limited to a maximum of 4' x b' in the Jack Hays Blvd. overlay district whereas in the Schertz Parkway overlay district there is no size requirement. After a brief discussion, the Commission decided to leave the ordinance as is. The last item discussed was Section 2.3 (d) which reads as follows: Building Setback Line: No building will be permitted within fifty (50') feet of FM 3009 right-of-way which will include signs, banners, pennants or flags of any type except as provided for below. The required fifty (50') foot building setback line may be adjusted, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, when it is determined the requirement is too restrictive or existing structures are already in place. These exceptions, will normally, only be granted in residential developments; however, exception can be granted in certain cases in commercial development. Exception can only be granted when it is shown there is undue hardship or extensive expense due to the contours of the land, drainage or odd-shaped lots. Authorized accessory buildings, being placed in rear yards of residential developments . abutting FM 3009 right-of-way, must have screens as provided for in Section F. Merwin Willman, again mentioning alternative types of development, said that if for example some of the parking lots were in the back of a.building rather than the front, that would change the building setback. Mr. Willman emphasized it is just an idea, but something that should be explored. George Vick pointed outthat if a developer wants something different, he can ask for a variance. Mr. Vick then asked Merwin Willman how he would suggest this type of alternative be written into the ordinance. - Mr. Willman replied he couldn't just come up with something, it takes time to plan it out. Bob Andrews said if memory serves him correctly, when the Commission wrote in the 50', they talked about a contiguous setback. Chairman Brisgill commented that one problem with parking lots at the back is that the front is at the back. - - Joe Potempa remarked the option could be included in the ordinance. Steve Simonson suggested adding a sentence to say something to the effect that "alternate site plans, for aesthetic purposes, will be considered in regard to the 50' setback". A poll was taken to see how many Commissioners were in favor of adding such a sentence. The majority felt it could be added after the sentence ending in ".......commercial development". Chairman Brisgill suggested that Merwin Willman, Bob Andrews and :,i:-- Steve Simonson work out the correct verbage and have it ready to - present at the next meeting. Jim Shriver made a motion to approve the changes discussed tonight for the Jack Hays Blvd. Overlay District (The changes will be available for the Commission's review at the next meeting.? Keith Van Dine seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #7 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on History of Boenig Family in Regard to Name Change of Binz-Englemann Road to Boenig Drive Chairman Brisgill asked Steve Simonson if Boenig Drive had been approved by the Post Office and Mr. Simonson replied yes it had. Keith Van Dine informed the Commission the Boenig family had arrived at their current. residence in 1919 and has been there ever since. The land consists of 176 acres which Gilbert Boenig still owns. Mr. Boenig himself does not farm it anymore, but he leases it out to be farmed. The residents of the Schirmerville area approve of and agree with-the name change of Binz-Englemann Road to Boenig Drive. Gilbert Boenig said his family would be very proud to have the road named after them. f There was some discussion on possibly suggesting another name. Keith Van Dine maintained that the name of Boenig Drive had already been approved by a vote several months ago. Mr. Van Dine asked Norma Althouse to check this out. NOTE: Upon checking the minutes, it was found that a motion was voted on and approved for changing.Binz-Englemann Road to Boenig Drive at the January 23, 1990 meeting Steve Simonson said he is sure there. is no other street in San Antonio with the name of Boenig Drive. Bob Andrews made a motion to recommend Binz-Englemann Road be renamed to Boenig Drive. Joe Potempa seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. ~S CONSIDER AND MARE RECOMMENDATION: Preparation of Written . Comments on CIP _ _ Steve Simonson had distributed to the Commission copies of the final calculations of water and wastewater maximum capital recovery fees received from Rimrock Consulting. The maximum capital recovery fees suggested by Rimrock are $633 per LUE for water and $1,364 per LUE for wastewater. Steve Simonson informed the Commission the maximum capital recovery fees suggested by John Bierschwale are $550 per LUE for water and $650 per LUE for wastewater. (The City is presently charging $800 for water and $550 for wastewater.) Chairman Brisgill asked why the difference between Rimrock's recommendations and John Bierschwale's recommendations. Steve Simonson replied that Mr. Bierschwale is trying to work with individuals and with developers. Mr. Simonson also pointed out there is still room to readjust. Bob Andrews made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the maximum fees recommended by John Bierschwale. Those fees are $550 per LUE for water and $650 per LUE for wastewater. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. A summary of the results of the impact fee policy worksheet (discussed by the Commission previously) had been prepared by Steve Simonson as part of the written comments to be forwarded from the. Commission to City Council. The Commission .reviewed the summary and approved it. John Bierschwale's recommended maximum capital recovery fees for water and wastewater will be added to it. (lo} t. #9 GENERAL.DISCQSSION Joe Potempa: (a) At 5206 Cabana they laid concrete last week and are putting up a structure, but Mr. Potempa doesn't think it meets City requirements: (Steve Simonson said he will have the inspectors check it out.> (b) Micki Combs has been given an extension until May 31st on the Mercury? Steve Simonson said that's correct. Merwin Willman: _ (a) Appears the Commission is going to need a replacement for Joe Potempa who is running for City Council. Suggest a notice be put in the May Newsletter so all applications can be in by May 16th. Further suggest the Commission review the applications at the May . 27th meeting and then select a replacement for Mr. Potempa's position at the June 12th meeting. (b) Regarding Spring Clean-Up - there's a skeleton of a billboard across from The Station on FM 78 which could be removed. (c) It's embarrassing not to have the changes yet to the Junk Vehicle Ordinance as far as a definition for screening. Chairman Brisgill told the Commission he had spoken to Mr. Sweatt about it approximately a month ago. Mr. Willman questioned if it has to go through a lawyer. Bob Andrews asked if the Commission could recommend to City Council a rewrite of the ordinance with a breakout between junk . and/or abandoned vehicles and antique vehicles. - Mr. Willman remarked he would like to have a copy of the recommendation made by the Commission to City Council regarding aesthetically appropriate covering. Steve Simonson suggested saying an antique vehicle, if covered by a tarp, will meet the requirements of this ordinance. Chairman Brisgill requested this item be on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting, George Vick• (a) Commented on a vehicle at the corner of Aero and Randolph which has been covered since January or February. (Steve Simonson said the City is aware of that vehicle - the owner is working on it slowly.) (11) Jim Shriver• (a) Who owns the land on the. left-hand side of Windy Meadows? There are always 18-wheelers parked there. Steve Simonson replied that- G.E.C. Corp. owns it and they are allowing the 18 wheelers to use it fo:r parking. Chairman Brisgill: (a) In regard to 18-wheelers, what about the lot next to Jack-in- _ the-Box? - Steve Simonson said the owner is leasing it out for 18 wheelers to park there. Mr. Brisgill related that the 18-wheelers are leaving big clumps of mud and dirt all over the road. Steve Simonson said th_e_City could talk to them about keeping the road clean. Councilperson Ken Greenwald: (a) Referring to the article in the newspaper about Schertz`s finances, said the City is not in the toilet as far as the budget goes. Mr. Greenwald stressed that the audit referred to in the newspaper article was from the previous fiscal year`s budget - it was over 6 months old.. Steve Simonson: (a) Said he and Joe Potempa and Jim Shriver had one meeting on annexation and ETJ areas. The following are their recommendations as a result of that meeting: 1. Clarify the City's ETJ with Cibolo. There is no agreement from Schaefer Road down. Follow Cibolo Creek all the way out to I-10 with Schertz on the west side and Cibolo on the east. 2. Regarding the area below Lower Seguin and above I-10, efforts should be made to see if San Antonio would release it to Schertz`s ETJ. 3. There is no ETJ agreement in the area out toward New Braunfels. The City needs to begin to square up the City limits in the area north of IH-35. It is a rock quarry area and an aquifer area. The City could follow the northern railroad tracks and come down to Green Valley Road and square up the City limits (which would take in Northcliffe). Councilperson.-Ken Greenwald asked if they're talking about strip annexation along Green Valley Road. Steve Simonson said yes for right now, but eventually it would be filled in. (12j Chairman Brisgill wondered about problems in annexing Northcliffe. Steve Simonson pointed out they are not recommending annexing it tomorrow, they're really trying to establish ETJ's. Merwin Willman stated that way they would know the size of the City in the future. Mr. Simonson remarked that people-don't realize how far the Cibolo Creek goes - Schertz could possibly be a City in the future that would average 30 square miles of area. 4. Consider the possibility of negotiations to establish the Missouri Pacific Railroad as the City limits in that area north of IH-35. 5. Why not annex Beck concrete? Merwin Willman asked about the three open spaces between IH-35 and the MKT Railroad. Steve Simonson said the City is currently involved in a lawsuit with Garden Ridge and also in the process of bringing sewer to the area. Should consider annexation several years down the road. Before the close of the meeting, Chairman Brisgill reminded the Commission they will need to select a Vice-Chairman after Joe Potempa leaves. #10 ADJOIIRNMENT Chairman Brisgill adjourned the meeting at 9:58 P.M. The next regularly scheduled meeting is April 24, 1990. !13)